## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 13 52

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn
* Dis tri ct of M is so ur i. Ju an Carl os Ch av ez-R am ire z, al so * kn own as Lo ren zo Cru z San ch ez, * [UNPUBLISHED] al so kn own as Lo ren zo San ch ez-C ru z, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 23 , 20 11 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

18 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re LOKEN, BEAM, and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
PER CURI AM.

Ju an Ch av ez-R a mi r e z ap pe al s hi s be lo w-Gui de li ne s se nt en ce of 14 m on th s, 19 da y s, fo r il le ga l re -en try in v io la ti on of 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6( a). W e aff irm.I. BACKGRO UND

Ch av ez-R am ire z was de po rte d in 19 97
, aft er li vi ng il le ga ll y in th e Uni te d
St at es fo r al m os t twen ty-fou r y ears , fro m th e ti m e he was si x or se ve n y ears ol d. He 1

so on ret ur ne d aft er de po rta ti on , and fo ll owi ng hi s fel on y co nv ic ti on fo r po ss es si on of co cai ne , was de po rte d in 20 05

. Onc e ag ai n, he ret ur ne d al m os t im m ed ia te ly, was de te ct ed at th e bo rd er, an d was ag ai n de po rte d si x da y s la te r in 20 05

. He ap pa ren tl y
ret ur ne d to th e Uni te d St at es , an d, fo ll owi ng hi s de te ct io n aft er a tra ffi c st op in Mar ch
20 10
, Ch av ez-R am ire z was ch arg ed wit h, an d pl ead ed gu il ty to , th e cu rren t of fen se

.

At se nt en ci ng , Ch av ez-R am ire z req ue st ed t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t de pa rt 2
do wnwar d ba se d up on Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l § 2L1 .2, cm t. n.8 (s ug ge st in g a do wnwar d de pa rtu re fo r "cu lt u ral as si m il at io n" if th e de fen da nt was br ou gh t to th e Uni te d St at es il le ga ll y a s a yo un g ch il d an d ha d res id ed he re

co nt in uo us ly si nc e th at ti m e). The di st ric t co ur t de cl in ed th is in vi ta ti on , st at in g th at Ch av ez-R am ire z di d no t m eet th e req ui rem en ts of th e cu lt ur al as si m il at io n gu id el in e. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Ch av ez-R am ire z di d no t "co nt in uo us ly res id e" in t he Uni te d St at es si nc e ch il dh oo d be cau se of th e de po rta ti on s in 19 97 an d 20 05

. The

co ur t al so ex pla ine d tha t Ch av ez -R am ir ez ' s signi fic an t cri m in al hi st or y , in cl ud in g two fel on ie s (co cai ne po ss es s i o n an d fo rg ery), th ree m is de m ean or s (b ur gl ary, do m es ti c

as sa ul t an d pe tt y th eft ), an d two tra ffi c of fen se s, pr ecl ud ed Ch av ez-R am ire z fro m
qu al ifyin g fo r th e d ep art ur e.

The pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t cal cu la te d Ch av ez-R am ire z ' s ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge as 15 -2 1 m on th s. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Ch av ez-R am ire z jus t be lo w th e bo tt om of th e ran ge to 14 m on th s pl us 19 da y s, to refl ect cred it fo r th e 11

The reco rd is no t en ti rel y cle ar o n t hi s p oi nt

. 1

The Hon or ab le St ep he n N. Lim ba ug h, Jr
., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e 2 East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-da y s Ch av ez-R am ire z sp en t in th e cu st od y of Imm ig rat io n awai ti ng pr os ecu ti on in

fed eral co ur t. On ap pe al
, Ch av ez-R am ire z arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d

pr oc ed ur al erro r in it s ap pl ic at io n of U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2; th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in refu si ng to red uc e hi s se nt en ce to acco un t fo r di sp ari ti es be twee n il le ga l re-e n try de fen da nt s in th e East ern Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri an d th os e in "fa st -tr ack " di st ric ts ; an d th at th e d is tri ct co ur t fa il ed to ad eq ua te ly exp la in th e rea so ns for hi s s en te nc e.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

W e rev ie w Ch av ez-R am ire z's se nt en ce un de r an ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd

to de te rm in e whe th e r t h e se nt en ce is free of pr oc ed ur al erro r an d whe th er it is

s u bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. Uni te d St at es v. Sch m id t, 57 1 F.3 d 74 3, 74 8 (8 t h C i r

. 20 09 ). The de ni al of a do wnwar d de pa rtu re is un rev ie wab le un le ss th e di st ric t co ur t ha d an un co ns ti tu ti on al m ot iv e or an erro ne ou s be li ef th at it was wit ho ut th e au th or it y
to gr an t th e de pa rtu re. Uni te d St at es v. And ers on , 57 0 F.3 d 1 0 2 5
, 1 0 3 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ).

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t co m m it pr oc ed ur al erro r in co nc lu di ng th at Ch av ezRam ire z di d no t qu al ify fo r do wnwar d de pa rtu re re li ef u nd er § 2L1 .2. App li cat io n

no te 8 to th is gu i d e l in e pr ov id es th at th ere m ay be cas es in whi ch a do wnwar d de pa rtu re is ap pr op r i at e ba se d up on th e ci rcu m st an ces of a de fen da nt who was br ou gh t as a ch il d to th e Uni te d St at es an d li ve d m os t of hi s or he r li fe he re. The no te

reco m m en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t ta ke i nt o acco un t whe th er th e de fen da nt

co nt in ua ll y res id ed in th e Uni t ed St at es , an d th e se rio us ne ss an d ex te nt of th e de fen da nt 's c riminal hi st or y , f oc us in g on th e cri m in al act s whi ch oc cu rred aft er t he de fen da nt ha d il le ga ll y reen te red

. U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2, cmt

. n

. 8

. Ch av ez-R am ire z
arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in req ui rin g hi s co nt in uo us ph y si cal pr es en ce in th e U n i t e d S t at es in or de r to qu al ify fo r rel ie f, an d arg ue s th at as so m eo ne who im m ed ia te ly ret ur ne d aft e r each de po rta ti on , he ha s "co nt in uo us ly res id ed " in th e Uni te d St at es si nc e he was a y ou ng ch il d. Eve n if th is is tru e, t h e d is tri ct co ur t's

-3

-al te rn at e ba si s fo r de nyin g rel ie f– ba se d up on Ch av ez-R am ire z's si gn ifi can t cri m in al hi st or y –p ro vi de s a pe rm is si bl e ba si s to de ny th e de pa rtu re. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t ha ve an un co ns ti tu ti on al m ot iv e in refu si ng to ap pl y th e do wnwar d de pa rtu re gu id el in e, no r was th e co ur t op erat in g un de r an erro ne ou s be li ef th at it was wit ho ut au th or it y

to gra nt th e d ep art ur e. See An de rs on , 57 0 F .3d at 1 03 4.

Seco nd
, th e di st ric t co ur t d i d n o t err in ap pl y in g th e fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t fro m U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2 fo r Ch av ez-R am ire z's il le g a l r e-en try as a co nv ic te d fel on

. Ch av ez-R am ire z arg ue s th at th is gu id el in e is "fu nd am en ta ll y fla wed " and res ul ts in

a se nt en ci ng ran ge th at ov ers ta te s t he ser io us ne ss of C ha ve z-Ra m ire z's of fen se an d

co ns ti tu te s do ub le co un ti ng or do ub le pu ni sh m en t. Ch av ez-R am ire z al so as se rts th at th ere i s n o e m

pi ric al ev id en ce t o su pp or t th is pa rti cu la r gu id el in e. Two of Ch av ezRam ire z's arg um en ts are fo recl os ed by ci rcu it pr eced en t. Uni te d St at es v. Dy ck
, 33 4
F.3 d 73 6, 74 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (h ol di ng th at § 2L1

. 2 d o e s no t do ub le co un t be cau se th e Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si on in te nd ed th at th e pr io r co nv ic t i o n b e us ed to bo th

en ha nc e a ba se of

fen se le ve l an d cal cu la te a cri m in al hi st or y sc or e); Uni te d St at es v. Tala m an te s, 6 20 F.3d 90 1, 9 02 (8t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (rejec ti ng th e in ad eq ua te -em pi ric al

da ta arg um en t beca us e it is pr op erl y m ad e to th e di st ric t, no t app el la te , co ur t). And th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in refu s i n g to fin d th at th e se nt en ci ng ran ge ov ers ta te d th e se rio us ne ss of C ha ve z-Ra m ire z's off en se

.

Ch av e z -Ram ire z's arg um en t reg ard in g th e di sp ari ty be twee n no n- fas t-t rack di st ric ts an d fas t-t rack di st ric ts is al so wit ho ut m eri t. Alt ho ug h it co ul d ha ve va rie d do wnwar d on th is ba si s, th e di st ric t co ur t's fai lu re to do so was cert ai nl y no t an ab us e of it s di sc ret io n. U n i t e d St at es v. Bo li va r-Di az, 59 4 F.3 d 10 03
, 10 04 -0 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (rejec ti ng de fen da nt 's su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss ch al le ng e whe n on e of th e
arg um en ts pr es en te d to th e di st ric t co ur t was th e un fai rn es s of ha vi ng res id ed in a

no n- fas t-t rack di st ric t). Fi na ll y , Ch av ez-R am ire z's ar gum en t tha t the dis tr ic t cour t di d

no t ad eq ua te ly exp la in th e se nt en ce i s b el ie d b y th e rec or d.

-4

-II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e aff irm th e se nt en ce i m

po se d b y th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-